To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 20 March 2017 (Minute Nos. to follow).

(2.4) 16/506986/FULL 116 Oak Lane, Upchurch, Kent, ME9 7AY

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 20 March 2017 (Minutes Nos. 1253 - 1254) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

16/506986/FULL – 116 Oak Lane, Upchurch, Kent, ME9 7AY

A Ward Member agreed with the concept of re-development of the site.  However, he raised concern with highway issues in relation to the proposed access being onto Oak Lane, and suggested that access should be onto Wallbridge Lane instead.  He stated that Oak Lane, with a width of four metres, was not wide enough, and from north to south, with the speed restriction sign being reverted from 30mph, to 60mph, vehicles started to speed up at this location.  He explained that requests had been made to have a highway scheme at this location.  He emphasised that good visibility was vital on this section of road, and reported that vehicles often mounted the pavement, as the road was so narrow.  The Ward Member explained that development at this site was not opposed, but he considered access at the proposed point onto Oak Lane was wrong.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

Members considered the application and raised points which included:  landscaping impact of the development was questionable; not happy with the responses from Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation; this was a chance to make Oak Lane safer; the development would be more preferable if the access was onto Wallbridge Lane; it would be dangerous with access onto Oak Lane; acknowledged concerns from local residents, but the highway issues already existed; it was unfair that the developer was having to pay for additional mitigation measures, when the highway issues had been longstanding; the existing property could install a dropped kerb in any case; this was not much of an impact to what was already there, and with landscaping and footpath, the area could be improved; the road was dangerous and vehicles’ speed along it was excessive; suggest reducing the number of properties to two; this was not an ideal entrance/exit for the development; was the option of access onto Wallbridge Lane put forward?; would like to understand opportunities to improve the scheme; the site needed to be developed; the hedge-line impacted on visibility; suggest a warning sign be installed to warn of hidden exit; and if access was onto Wallbridge Lane, residents were unlikely to use the rear access for parking, further impacting on Oak Lane.

In response to a question, the KCC Highways and Transportation Officer explained that the definition of a dangerous road, was whether it had a crash history, and he reported that there was no crash history at this location.  He stated that on balance the scheme was preferable as it was, rather than access onto Wallbridge Lane, and the scheme would increase visibility for neighbouring properties.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the previous application had shown all three accesses onto Oak Lane, but this application had been withdrawn.  He stated that access was possible onto Wallbridge Lane, but it was difficult  to achieve a good layout using this option.

On being put to the vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

Discussion ensued on the way forward.  A Member suggested refusing the application on highway grounds.

The Senior Lawyer advised that there needed to be factual-based evidence, rather than comments, for highway reasons for refusal.

There was a two-minute recess whilst the Head of Planning Services, Senior Lawyer and Area Planning Officer left the meeting to consider the options.

The Head of Planning Services advised that the application could be deferred to discuss with the applicant further options for the scheme.  He advised of the risk of an appeal for non-determination.  The Chairman moved the recommendation to defer the application and this was seconded.

Resolved:  That application 16/506986/FULL be deferred to allow discussions with the applicant on further options for the scheme.